# Is the book "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe the end of evolution? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 18, 2003, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059 "2003-08-18T21:57:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Brad\_Amundsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dbc845/32.png) [@Brad\_Amundsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brad_Amundsen)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059/1 "2003-08-18T21:57:10Z")
I recently read, " Darwin’s Black Box" by Michael J Behe. He presents an overwhelming case against Darwin’s theory on a biochemical level. Behe uses what he calls “irreducible complexity” as the backbone of his belief that evolution has an uphill battle if not an impossible road to travel to be possible. In reading this book it has convinced me that evolution ,as Darwin has suggested, is impossible. Am I just a sucker for a well written book or does Behe all but debunk evolution? Why has this book not become more mainstream? I know that evolution has been debated for decades without any give on either side.Hope this is not a tired subject. ---
**Author:** ![Tars\_Tarkas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tars\_Tarkas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tars_Tarkas)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059/2 "2003-08-18T22:10:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Is the book “Darwin’s Black Box” by Michael J. Behe the end of evolution? No. WTF is “irreducible complexity”? is it just a fancy new name for the watchmaker arguement? ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059/3 "2003-08-18T22:20:38Z")
No, he hasn’t the real scientific debate over whether evolutionary farmework was a correct (using a lose defintion of correct as the natuarl sciences can’t prove anything 100%) or not ended many decades before the real scientific debate over whether the relativity and QM frameworks where correct (infact before hese two theories were ever formulated). You still see alot of sites on the internet claiming to of debunked relativity, needless to say they’re all bunk. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059/4 "2003-08-18T22:35:32Z")
I think Behe’s argument is similar to the watchmaker argument, but not quite exactly the same. If you are interested in in-depth criticism of Behe’s work: [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html) Behe is using something similar to the watchmaker argument, and he seems to either be unaware of or ignore completely much scientific data. ---
**Author:** ![Brad\_Amundsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dbc845/32.png) [@Brad\_Amundsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brad_Amundsen)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059/5 "2003-08-18T22:37:06Z")
> [@](#): > > WTF is “irreducible complexity”? is it just a fancy new name for the watchmaker arguement? In reply to tars tarks Read the book it explains it very well. To shorten what is said in the book on irreducible complexity is to sell it short. It does resemble the watchmaker arguement but gives specific biochemical examples of things like the watch (such as the human eye) that are so complex you cannot reduce them to indiviual parts that could have been evolved. In other words there are parts in the human eye that require several other parts and systems to work as one.Missing one ,the whole system collapses.So in order for the eye to have been evolved the mutation would have to have been all of these parts at once and is beyond probability of happenning. Believe me I don’t do it justice I would prefer comments from people who have read part or are somewhat familiar with the book. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059/6 "2003-08-18T22:37:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brad Amundsen \* > \*\*I recently read, " Darwin’s Black Box" by Michael J Behe. He presents an overwhelming case against Darwin’s theory on a biochemical level. \*\* Behe spoke at my university recently, to an audience of professional molecular biologists. Pretty much everyone thought his argument was a sad joke. You have to understand that Behe isn’t very honest. I read partway through his book, and quit because I got too frustrated with the fact that Behe was twisting the truth, knowing that he could get away with it because his target audience doesn’t know enough about biology. > [@](#): > > \*\*In reading this book it has convinced me that evolution ,as Darwin has suggested, is impossible. Am I just a sucker for a well written book or does Behe all but debunk evolution? \*\* “Sucker” is a bit harsh, but Behe has indeed deceived you. Search for his name in GD and you’ll find earlier threads in which we go into more detail. The two big problems: 1.) Behe’s argument is based on the fallacy of the argument from ignorance. As many of my coworkers pointed out to him, if you just say “our current understanding of evolution can’t explain this,” then pretty much any scientist admits that there are things we don’t understand yet. The problem is that Behe then goes on to say, “since you can’t explain it, I win by default, and I choose to explain it by magic.” 2.) Behe is a very dishonest guy, in more ways than one. To wit: a.) He presents himself differently to different audiences, to the point that it’s hard to find out what he believes. To my coworkers, he presented himself as basically being a theistic evolutionist. To a creationist audience, however, he’ll present himself as being a creationist, and go on about transitional fossils and suchlike. b.) He doesn’t accurately report the scientific facts which he uses to support his arguments. (For that matter, he time and again attacks strawman versions of evolution.) c.) Ultimately, Behe refuses to admit any possibility that he might be wrong. When a scientist confronted him with an apparently random process at work in creating IC structures, Behe replied that it only _looked_ random, and God was secretly manipulating things behind the scenes. Similarly, Behe could just as well demand that you prove that there _isn’t_ an invisible unicorn in the room. See? That proves unicorns really exist. Behe is living in his own thought bubble, and even when his arguments are debunked, he retreats into claims that God is secretly operating behind the scenes and just making things look like evolution is at work. d.) Behe is generally a weaselly guy. Remember, you’ve read a book in which Behe presents his ideas without anyone else around to challenge them. Plus, like I said, he’s presenting them to non-experts, so he can twist the truth without getting caught. During Q&A at my university, I’m not sure he gave a straightforward answer to even a single question he was asked, because his arguments really don’t survive knowledgeable scrutiny. So far as I know, Behe refuses to engage in a moderated debate on his work. And remember, there’s a reason why this “scientist” has published his work in a book for nonscientists to read, rather than publishing scientific papers for scientists to read. ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059/7 "2003-08-18T22:40:56Z")
Good God **MC**. Put the bottle down and go to bed, or at least preview your posts. I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say. ---
**Author:** ![Brad\_Amundsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dbc845/32.png) [@Brad\_Amundsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brad_Amundsen)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059/8 "2003-08-18T22:48:38Z")
I don’t think Behe is trying to debunk anything. He is just presenting some hard scientific questions to the scientific community that need to be answered. I haven’t seen one stich of an answer to one of his many questions. He uses complex science to ask his questions?They demand complex scientific answers? I see none including “BrightNShiney’s” cite. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059/9 "2003-08-18T23:01:30Z")
What specific questions would you like answered? (you should also search this forum. Behe gets debunked here about once a month) ---
**Author:** ![Brad\_Amundsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dbc845/32.png) [@Brad\_Amundsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brad_Amundsen)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059/10 "2003-08-18T23:04:02Z")
Ben Your arguements attack Behe on a personal level but do not answer any of his many profound questions. Where Can I read one answer to one of Behe’s many questions? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059/11 "2003-08-18T23:07:30Z")
What alternative does Behe offer? I.D. or God just doesn’t cut it in the scientific community-- there is **not one single shred of scientific evidence** for either. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059/12 "2003-08-18T23:08:16Z")
What “profound” questions are you referring to? Be specific. ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059/13 "2003-08-18T23:12:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RoundGuy \* > \*\*Good God **MC**. Put the bottle down and go to bed, or at least preview your posts. I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say. \*\* Sorry, a few words and commas were missed along with other assorted typos: No he hasn’t, the real scientific debate over whether the evolutionary framework is correct (using a lose defintion of correct as the natural sciences can’t prove anything 100%) or not ended many decades before the real scientific debate over whether the relativity and QM frameworks were correct (infact before these two theories were ever formulated). You still see a lot of sites on the internet claiming to of debunked relativity, needless to say they’re all bunk. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059/14 "2003-08-18T23:14:40Z")
From this page: [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html) With regards to antibodies: > [@](#): > > Behe spends a whole chapter (Chapter 6), describing portions of the immune system. After going through a section describing the production of antibodies, which he claims is an “irreducibly complex” process and therefore could not be the product of evolution, he makes a very interesting statement. p.131-132: > > > [@](#): > > > > Antibodies are like toy darts: they harm no one. Like a “Condemned” sign posted on an old house or an orange “X” painted on a tree to be removed, antibodies are only signals to other systems to destroy the marked object. > > Behe then goes on to describe the complement system. And nothing else. Leaving us with the impression that antibodies and complement, each supposedly “irreducibly complex,” require each other for function. > > The biological reality is quite different. Antibodies can function on their own. They can function in the absence of complement. It seems Behe is using as evidence the idea that antibodies require complimentary systems to function, but this is in reality not quite true. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059/15 "2003-08-18T23:16:09Z")
I messed up my formatting. The last paragraph in the embedded quote is from TalkOrigins not from Behe’s book. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059/16 "2003-08-18T23:26:40Z")
Just great. Yet another Behe post. [sigh] One of Behe’s problems is that he ignores the reality that evolutionary change is affected by the arrow of time as much as any other process: in other words, evolutionary changes are not necessarily reversible. Consider blood clotting. The biochemical mechanisms responsible for the clotting of blood are quite complex. If even one in the long chain of reactions fails, either blood clots inappropriately (killing the subject) or fails to clot (often killing the subject). Thus, any subtractive mutation in the biochemical pathways that cause clotting is usually lethal. What Behe ignores is that it’s much easier to add new links to such a chain than remove them. Taking a step away causes the system to fail, but additional steps can potentially be added in between existing ones without negative effects. ---
**Author:** ![Brad\_Amundsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dbc845/32.png) [@Brad\_Amundsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brad_Amundsen)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059/17 "2003-08-18T23:31:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*What alternative does Behe offer? I.D. or God just doesn’t cut it in the scientific community-- there is **not one single shred of scientific evidence** for either. \*\* Simple fact is he doesn’t offer an alternative he just asks questions that evolutionary science cannot answer. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059/18 "2003-08-18T23:35:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brad Amundsen \* > \*\*Simple fact is he doesn’t offer an alternative he just asks questions that evolutionary science cannot answer. \*\* I think that answers your OP question. Evolution will be the mainstream theory of biology until someone provides a better answer-- ie, one that explains more observable phenomena and makes better predictions. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059/19 "2003-08-18T23:37:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brad Amundsen \* > Simple fact is he doesn’t offer an alternative he just asks questions that evolutionary science cannot answer. Don’t you mean “cannot answer **yet?** ” And note that merely not having an answer at this moment is not _ipso facto_ “proof” that evolution doesn’t work. Out of curiousity, **Brad,** are you here to learn, or just to lecture? Because I don’t see a lot of the former from your posts in this thread so far. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059/20 "2003-08-18T23:41:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brad Amundsen \* > \*\*Simple fact is he doesn’t offer an alternative he just asks questions that evolutionary science cannot answer. \*\* Utterly and completely wrong. The entire point of Darwin’s Black Box is to present ID as an alternative. And BTW, I did address Behe’s arguments. Would you care to address mine? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-darwins-black-box-by-michael-j-behe-the-end-of-evolution/196059.md?page=2)